🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4864@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:

> Hogwash. I suggest you take a drive to some of these timbered private lands
> before and after they have been logged. Not only are there aesthetic
> changes that reduce the value of a neighbors property, there are
> physical effects such as increased runoff, habitat destruction, climate
> changes, negative riparian effects (where applicable), and the increased
> dust and noise levels during the actual logging operation.  

> Mr. Slagle, please show how each one of these effects DOES NOT have
> a negative impact on the adjacent property owner.

If you are the adjacent property owner, then you may take your
case to the courts for redress of your alleged damages.  If you
are not, then you are just blowing hot air.  In either case, you
have no fundamental right to a view that includes keeping the
property of you neighbor in pristine condition.

> More hogwash. Zoning laws and city/county plans are drawn up during
> a process by which all citizens of the area in question have a right
> (and I would add, an obligation) to support or not support specific
> proposals. These agreements are reached by concensus, which as you
> may be aware, is what democracy is all about. 

The hogwash is your own.  Just because you get a big enough
"concensus" together does not nullify the property rights of
others.  In case you had forgotten, this country is founded on
the proposition that there are some inalienable rights, among
them the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
These are rights that you and your gang can't take away just by
getting enough votes.

> I happen to live in
> the historical district of Nevada City and I have to ask the Planning
> Commission for approval on the color I wish to paint my house. Many
> residents complain about this, but I tell them they should move if they
> don't like it. 

My city right or wrong.  Love it or leave it.  Right neighborly
of you.  And you think that kind of intrusive government is a
good thing?  Astounding.

> Mr. Slagle, please show how planning agreements do not benefit a 
> majority of residents [your requirement was "all" as noted above;
> even a me-firster like you should recognize the unworkability of

Can't you have a discussion without indulging yourself in name
calling?

> such a requirement], and how they are not a "good thing," whatever
> that implies. Your contention that agreements reached by the 
> democratic process are selfish is contradictory. Clear this up please.

There is nothing contradictory whatsoever about the proposition
that democratically enacted laws can be selfish.  Most are,
although I don't think that that is necessarily as bad a thing
as you seem to believe.

> Mr. Slagle, please discuss the matter at hand, which is whether or not 
> logging private land effects the neighbors. So far you have said
> nothing that provides evidence that it does not.

The issue is not whether logging private lands "effects" the
neighbors.  Most human activities affect the neighbors in
some way or another.  The issue is whether you have any legal
or moral standing to prevent owners from harvesting the timber
on their own lands in their own way.  The burden of proof is
on you and your busybody cohort to demonstrate that standing.
Otherwise, you should just mind your own affairs and leave
others to theirs.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA